SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(MP) 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.K. Gangele, J.
Hari Charan Soni
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 6131 of 2006 (S)
Decided On: 06.10.2010

The main legal point established in the judgment is that reservation in a single post cadre is not permissible, and the delay in challenging a promotion may be condoned if satisfactorily explained.

Headnote:

Promotion - Municipal Employees - The Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment And Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 - 2, 4, 5(a), 12, 15, 16 - The court discussed the promotion of a municipal employee to the post of Upper Division Clerk and the application of the Rules of 1968. The court considered the definition of Municipal Employee, Municipal Service, and Post, the methods of recruitment, reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, procedure for recruitment by promotion, gradation list, and seniority as per the Rules of 1968. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation of reservation in a single post cadre and its impact on the promotion.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Grade-III, citing that the respondent was junior and the promotion was illegal. The respondents argued that the promotion was within the reserved quota for Scheduled Caste and that there was a delay in challenging the promotion.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's seniority had to be maintained in the cadre of L.D.C. of the respondent No. 4, and the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the single post of Upper Division Clerk was illegal. The court also held that the delay in challenging the promotion was not a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the promotion, the application of reservation for Scheduled Caste, and the delay in challenging the promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the single post of Upper Division Clerk was illegal and that the delay in challenging the promotion was not a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Final Decision: The petition of the petitioner was allowed, and the impugned order in regard to the promotion of the respondent No. 5 was quashed. The respondent No. 4 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and other candidates for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk in accordance with law.

ORDER

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 30-4-1983 in Nagar Panchayat, Daboh, District Bhind. In the year 1992, the petitioner was transferred to Nagar Panchayat Bhander. Thereafter he was again transferred from Bhander to Aantri, District Gwalior in 1997.

3. The respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in Nagar Panchayat Daboh, District Bhind on 8-2-1988. The Nagar Panchayat issued gradation list of Lower Division Clerks. In the aforesaid list the respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No. 2. His date of appointment has been mentioned as 8-2-1988. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the aforesaid gradation list.

4. The post of Upper Division Clerk (Assistant Grade-II) had fallen vacant and the respondent No. 4 requested the Deputy Director Urban Administration to grant sanction for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II from the Assistant Grade-III. Consequently, the District Selection Committee in its meeting held on 13-11-1995 found the respondent No. 5 suitable for promotion and recommended his name for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. The Deputy Director Urban Administration vide letter dated 15-11-1995 approved the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Upper Division Clerk and thereafter the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (Assistant Grade-II) vide an order dated 1-1-1996. When the petitioner came to know about the promotion of the respondent No. 5, he submitted an application to the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat requesting to supply copy of the promotion order of the respondent No. 5 on 11-8-2006 and thereafter he submitted a representation in regard to promotion of respondent No. 5 to the post of Upper Division Clerk. Thereafter he filed the present petition.

5. The respondent No. 5 in its return raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petitioner that the petition is not maintainable because there is a delay of 10 years in challenging the order of promotion. It has further been submitted by the respondent No. 5 that he has been promoted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Caste, hence, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order of promotion of the respondent.

6. The respondents No. 1 to 3 in the return pleaded that the respondent No. 5 was promoted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, hence, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order of promotion. It has further been contended that there is a delay and latches in challenging the order of promotion by the petitioner.

7. The Nagar Panchayat has also taken the same stand in its return.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat Daboh because his lien has been maintained at Nagar Panchayat Daboh. The respondent No. 5 is junior to the petitioner, hence, his promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk is illegal. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel that there cannot be any reservation to a single post. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgment:

(i). Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others 1988 2 SCC 214 and

(ii). Munna Lal Karosiya v. State of M.P. and Others. 2010 1 M.P.H.T. 360

9. Contrary to this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Municipal Council and respondent No. 5 have contended that the respondent No. 5 has been promoted to the post which is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, hence, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order of promotion and there are delay and latches in challenging the promotion order.

10. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 30-4-1983 issued by the Nagar Panchayat Daboh, District Bhind. The re






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top